Whilst it is implied by some (not solely on this thread btw) that loss of electrical systems/normal instruments leaves the aircraft solely under the control of the pilots, and that some people on the forum may find it strange that such a comment is made.
Remember this is the problem with electronic/computerised aircraft. That when the electronics develop any deficiencies it takes a big step to extract oneself (as a crew) to then operate the aircraft as an aeroplane. Even the old 757, basic in todays world as it was (and maybe that was part of the problem), could confuse pilots enormously with certain failures. A "basic" instrument panel scenario was difficult to convert to. Berganair out of Puerto Plata, the first ever 757 hull loss, is for me a perfect example. Many conflicting pieces of information when, in fact, if the poor pilots had realised the problem (blocked static tubes), they could have immediately transferred to the basic information. They didn't (in time?) and a fairly serviceable aircraft hit the sea with a terrible human cost.
I think the lesson to be learned is to consider carefully what you will see on that cold dark night that this happens, and how you will react.
I am not a 320 expert but have a very good understanding of how difficult these situations can be after 20 years on Boeing aircraft.
To anybody who is unanniciated in operating these types of aircraft. Just imagine driving a big heavy car (Jaguar XJ say) and all of sudden the power steering fails, just as you go into a sharp bend! It's still a car but boy it's a different car than it was before the steering developed problems! It's still got to get around that bend without you crashing it!
Just my opinion. I must say that after 30 years of flying one of the best things any pilot can do is to consider many scenarios within many different operating environments and picture how it could possibly be dealt with.
Stay alert folks. Safe flying. O'Neill No6